Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of the effects of students’ expository text comprehension strategies

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This experimental study examined students’ comprehension of challenging, ecologically valid, history text. We examined the benefits of the elaborative interrogation (EI) comprehension strategy and the main idea (MI) strategy when compared to an independent study (IS) control. This work extended previous research and explored the ecological validity, generalizability, and utility of EI as an effective comprehension strategy. Dependent measures included a matching test, text-explicit recognition items, text-implicit recognition items, and a situational interest measure. Demographic data were collected for descriptive purposes and prior domain knowledge was used as a control variable. Findings indicated few differences between the MI and EI comprehension strategies in learning outcomes. Additional results, however, suggested potential for the EI strategy to increase interest when students have prior knowledge of the text topic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ACT, Inc. (2006). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading. Iowa City, IA.

  • Ainley, M., Hidi, S., & Berndorff, D. (2002). Interest, learning, and the psychological processes that mediate their relationship. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 545–561. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, P. A. (1995). Superimposing a situation-specific and domain-specific perspective on an account of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist. Special Issue: Current issues in research on self-regulated learning: A discussion with commentaries, 30, 189–193.

  • Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., Armstrong, J. O., Wise, M. A., Janisch, C., & Mayer, L. A. (1991). Reading and questioning in content area lessons. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23(1), 35–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J. (1987). Does text structure/summarization instruction facilitate learning from expository text? Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 331–346. doi:10.2307/747972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod, J. (1975). Getting the main idea is still the main idea. Journal of Reading, 18, 383–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1991). Revising social studies text from a text-processing perspective: Evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(3), 251–276. doi:10.2307/747763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. B., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, O. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau, R. L., Wood, E., Willoughby, T., & Specht, J. (1999). Evaluating the efficacy of elaborative strategies for remembering expository text. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 45, 170–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callender, A. A., & McDaniel, M. A. (2007). The benefits of embedded question adjuncts for low and high structure builders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 339–348. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by sixth-grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the internet. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214–257. doi:10.1598/RRQ.42.2.2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cromley, J. G., & Azevedo, R. (2007). Testing and refining the direct and inferential mediation model of reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 311–325. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, M. A. (2001). Integrative studies: Teaching for the twenty-first century. The History Teacher, 34(4), 471–485. doi:10.2307/3054200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiVesta, F. J., & Gray, G. S. (1972). Listening and note taking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(1), 8–14. doi:10.1037/h0032243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dornisch, M. M., & Sperling, R. A. (2004). Elaborative questions in web-based text materials. International Journal of Instructional Media, 31, 49–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dornisch, M. M., & Sperling, R. A. (2006). Facilitating learning from technology-enhanced text: Effects of prompted elaborative interrogation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 156–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyer, C., & Nel, C. (2003). Teaching reading strategies and reading comprehension within a technology-enhanced learning environment. System, 31, 349–365. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00047-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evers, A. (2001). The revised Dutch rating scale for test quality. International Journal of Testing, 1(2), 155–182. doi:10.1207/S15327574IJT0102_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foner, E. (2005). Give me liberty: An American history (Vol. 2). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(3), 210–225. doi:10.1177/00222194070400030301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgia End-of-Course-Tests. U.S. History released test booklet. (2004). Georgia Department of Education.

  • Gilabert, R., Martinez, G., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2005). Some good texts are always better: Text revisions to foster inferences of readers with high and low prior background knowledge. Learning and Instruction, 15, 45–68. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.12.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, C., Symons, S., & Richards, C. (1996). Elaborative interrogation effects for children with learning disabilities: Isolated facts versus connected prose. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 19–42. doi:10.1006/ceps.1996.0003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, R. J. (1997). Effects of three types of elaboration on learning concepts from text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 299–318. doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harcourt School Publishers. (2003). Retrieved February 8, 2008, from http://www.harcourt.com/.

  • Heartsoft Educational Software. (2007). Software for development of literacy skills. Retrieved February 8, 2008, from http://www.heartsoft.com/literacy/literacy_home.php.

  • Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and practical considerations. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 191–209. doi:10.1023/A:1016667621114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hilden, K. R., & Pressley, M. (2007). Self-regulation through transactional strategies instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23, 51–75. doi:10.1080/10573560600837651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houghton Mifflin. (2008). Retrieved February 8, 2008, from http://www.hmco.com/products/products_elementary.html.

  • Jitendra, A. K., Chard, D., Hoppes, M. K., Renouf, K., & Gardill, M. C. (2001). An evaluation of main idea strategy instruction in four commercial reading programs: Implications for students with learning problems. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 17, 53–73. doi:10.1080/105735601455738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jitendra, A. K., Hoppes, M. K., & Xin, Y. P. (2000). Enhancing main idea comprehension for students with learning problems: The role of a summarization strategy and self-monitoring instruction. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 127–139. doi:10.1177/002246690003400302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiewra, K. A., DuBios, N. F., Christian, D., McShane, A., Meyerhoffer, M., & Roskelley, D. (1991). Note-taking functions and techniques. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 240–245. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.2.240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated questioning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 111–126. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2701_8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, R. D. (2000). Nonreaders anonymous: Reading history collaboratively. The History Teacher, 33, 453–468. doi:10.2307/494942.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, V., & Pressley, M. (1991). Elaborative-interrogation effects depend on the nature of the question. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 113–119. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, L. H., Meadan, H., Hedan, L., & Corso, L. (2006). Self-regulated strategy development instruction for expository text comprehension. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(4), 47–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Graetz, J. E. (2003). Reading comprehension instruction for secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 103–116. doi:10.2307/1593593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M. A., & Donnelly, C. M. (1996). Learning with analogy and elaborative interrogation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 508–519. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDougal Littell. (2007). The Americans. Retrieved February 8, 2008, from http://www.mcdougallittell.com/ml/ss.htm?level2Code=AH&lvl=3.

  • Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structures in text: Key for reading comprehension in ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72–103. doi:10.2307/747349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F., Middlemiss, W., Theodorou, E., Brezinski, K. L., McDougall, J., & Bartlett, B. J. (2002). Effects of structure strategy instruction delivered to fifth-grade children using the internet with and without the aid of older adult tutors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 486–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M. (1993). Situational interest: Its multifaceted structure in the secondary school mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(3), 424–436. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.3.424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montelongo, J., Berber-Jimenez, L., Hernandez, A. C., & Hosking, D. (2006). Teaching expository text structures. Science Teacher (Normal, Ill.), 73(2), 28–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, M. P., & Savage, T. (2005). Enhancing student comprehension of social studies material. Social Studies (Maynooth, Ireland), 96, 18–23. doi:10.3200/TSSS.96.1.18-23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). Teacher’s tools for the 21st century: A report on teachers’ use of technology (NCES Report No. 2000-102). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). The nation’s report card reading summary (NCES Report No. 2006-451). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). The nation’s report card reading summary (NCES Report No 2007-496). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ness, M. (2007). Reading comprehension strategies in secondary content-area classrooms. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(3), 229–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), Program of Research on Reading Comprehension, Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 69 (April 10, 2002), Department of Education. (Notice of final priority).

  • O’Reilly, T., Symons, S., & MacLatchy-Gaudet, H. (1998). A comparison of self- explanation and elaborative interrogation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 434–445. doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozgungor, S., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Interactions among elaborative interrogation, knowledge, and interest in the process of constructing knowledge from text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 437–443. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.3.437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., McDaniel, M. A., Turnure, J. E., Wood, E., & Ahmad, M. (1987). Generation and precision of elaboration: Effects on intentional and incidental learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 291–300. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.13.2.291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Symons, S., McDaniel, M. A., Snyder, B. L., & Turnure, J. E. (1988). Elaborative interrogation facilitates acquisition of confusing facts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 268–278. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampston, J., & Echevarria, M. (1998). Literacy instruction in 10 fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 159–194. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0202_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V. E., Martin, V., King, A., & Menke, D. (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 91–109. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2701_7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rapp, D. N., van den Broek, P., McMaster, K. L., Panayiota, K., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Higher-order comprehension processes in struggling readers: A perspective for research and intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading. Special Issue: What should the scientific study of reading be now and in the near future?, 11(4), 289–312.

  • Reder, L. M., Charney, D. H., & Morgan, K. I. (1986). The role of elaborations in learning a skill from an instructional text. Memory & Cognition, 14, 64–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadoski, M., & Paivio, A. (2007). Toward a unified theory of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(4), 337–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., Bruning, R., & Svoboda, C. (1995). Sources of situational interest. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). The effect of reader purpose on interest and recall. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26(1), 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2001). Situational interest: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 23–51. doi:10.1023/A:1009004801455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seifert, T. L. (1993). Effects of elaborative interrogation with prose passages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(4), 642–651. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seifert, T. L. (1994). Enhancing memory for main ideas using elaborative interrogation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 360–366. doi:10.1006/ceps.1994.1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjostrom, C. L., & Hare, V. C. (1984). Teaching high school students to identify main ideas in expository text. The Journal of Educational Research, 78(2), 114–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spires, H. A., & Donley, J. (1998). Prior knowledge activation: Inducing engagement with informational texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 249–260. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, B. S., & Bransford, J. D. (1979). Constraints on effective elaboration: Effects of precision and subject generation. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 769–777. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(79)90481-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, R. J. (1988). Effects of strategy training on the identification of the main idea of expository passages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 21–26. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.1.21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Studies capture a world of reading instruction. (2006, October/November). Reading Today, 5.

  • Taboada, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2006). Contributions of student questioning and prior knowledge to construction of knowledge from reading information text. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(1), 1–35. doi:10.1207/s15548430jlr3801_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Therrien, W. J., Wickstrom, K., & Jones, K. (2006). Effect of a combined repeated reading and question generation intervention on reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(2), 89–97. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2006.00209.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyson-Bernstein, H. (1988). A conspiracy of good intentions: America’s textbook fiasco. Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1992). Washington, D.C. Retrieved February 9, 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d97/d97t404.asp.

  • Van Keer, H., & Verhaeghe, J. P. (2005). Effects of explicit reading strategies instruction and peer tutoring on second and fifth graders’ reading comprehension and self-efficacy perceptions. Journal of Experimental Education, 73(4), 291–329. doi:10.3200/JEXE.73.4.291-329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade, S. E., Trathen, W., & Schraw, G. (1990). An analysis of spontaneous study strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(2), 147–166. doi:10.2307/747599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wakefield, J. F. (2006, April). Textbook usage in the United States: The case of U.S. History. Paper presented at the International Seminar on Textbooks, Santiago, Chile.

  • Warren, W. J. (2007). Closing the distance between authentic history pedagogy and everyday classroom practice. The History Teacher, 40(2), 249–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for primary-grade students: A focus on text structure. The Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 6–18. doi:10.1177/00224669050390010201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willoughby, T., Waller, T. G., Wood, E., & MacKinnon, G. E. (1993). The effect of prior knowledge on an immediate and delayed associative learning task following elaborative interrogation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 36–46. doi:10.1006/ceps.1993.1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willoughby, T., Wood, E., McDermott, C., & McLaren, J. (2000). Enhancing learning through strategy instruction and group interaction: Is active generation of elaborations critical? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 14, 19–30. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(200001)14:1<19::AID-ACP619>3.0.CO;2-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2404_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woloshyn, V. E., Paivio, A., & Pressley, M. (1994). Use of elaborative interrogation to help students acquire information consistent with prior and information inconsistent with prior knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 79–89. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woloshyn, V. E., Pressley, M., & Schneider, W. (1992). Elaborative-interrogation and prior-knowledge effects on learning of facts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 115–124. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.1.115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woloshyn, V. E., Willoughby, T., Wood, E., & Pressley, M. (1990). Elaborative interrogation facilitates adult learning of factual paragraphs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 513–524. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.3.513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, E., & Hewitt, K. L. (1993). Assessing the impact of elaborative strategy instruction relative to spontaneous strategy use in high achievers. Exceptionality, 4, 65–79. doi:10.1207/s15327035ex0402_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, E., Pressley, M., & Winne, P. H. (1990). Elaborative interrogation effects on children’s learning of factual content. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 741–748. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, E., Willoughby, T., Kaspar, V., & Idel, T. (1994). Enhancing adolescents’ recall of factual content: The impact of provided versus self-generated elaborations. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 40, 57–65.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Pennsylvania State University, 231 CEDAR Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Crystal M. Ramsay

  2. The Pennsylvania State University, 232 CEDAR Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    Rayne A. Sperling

  3. Long Island University, C.W. Post, 720 Northern Boulevard, Brookville, NY, 11548, USA

    Michele M. Dornisch

Authors
  1. Crystal M. Ramsay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rayne A. Sperling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michele M. Dornisch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Crystal M. Ramsay.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ramsay, C.M., Sperling, R.A. & Dornisch, M.M. A comparison of the effects of students’ expository text comprehension strategies. Instr Sci 38, 551–570 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9081-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9081-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation